[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 21. Under the Five-minute Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10059-10083]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 21. Under the Five-minute Rule

    Recognition for amendments and debate under the five-minute rule is 
subject to the discretion of the Chair, who may adhere to any one of 
several recognized principles to avoid being perceived as 
``arbitrary.'' Seniority, committee membership, alternation between 
parties--all are established as techniques or tests for bestowing 
recognition. (All of these ``criteria'' for recognition are within the 
discretion of the Chair. So all these principles should be considered 
as alternatives.)

                            Cross References
Closing and limiting five-minute debate, see Sec. 78, infra.
Duration of five-minute debate, see Sec. 77, infra.
Effect of limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 79, infra.

[[Page 10060]]

Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on five-
    minute debate, see Sec. 80, infra.
Five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, see 
    Sec. 70, infra.
Recognition for amendments generally, see Sec. 19, supra.
Recognition and debate for motion that the Committee rise and report 
    back the bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken, see Sec. Sec. 77, 79, infra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited, see Sec. 22, 
    infra.
Relevancy in five-minute debate, see Sec. 38, infra.
Yielding for debate under five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Principles of Recognition: Pri-or Recognition of Committee Members

Sec. 21.1 The matter of recognition of Members in the Committee of the 
    Whole to offer amendments under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, and he may extend preference to members of 
    the committee which reported the bill according to seniority.

    On July 21, 1949,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
reading for amendment under the five-minute rule H.R. 5345, the 
Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1949. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, recognized Mr. James P. Sutton, of Tennessee, to offer an 
amendment. The Chairman then responded to a parliamentary inquiry on 
the order of recognition for amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, is it not 
    the custom during debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in 
    recognizing Members to alternate from side to side? At least I 
    suggest to the Chair that that would be the fair procedure. The 
    Chair has recognized three Democrats in a row.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the 
    matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the 
    discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as 
    closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, who has been seeking recognition, has been a Member of 
    the House for 10 years, and the gentleman from Tennessee is a 
    Member whose service began only this year.
        The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the 
    official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has 
    before him.

[[Page 10061]]

        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Tennessee.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995) 
        for amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
        the Whole.
            See also 117 Cong. Rec. 34287, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        30, 1971 (recognition under five-minute rule is first accorded 
        to members of the reporting committee, and the Chair endeavors 
        to alternate between majority and minority members of the 
        committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chairman of Committee

Sec. 21.2 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the chairman 
    of the legislative committee reporting the bill under 
    consideration.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Flor-ida, sought recognition and 
when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose, he 
stated that his purpose was to offer an amendment. The Chairman then 
recognized Mr. Perkins to submit a unanimous-consent request on closing 
debate before recognizing Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair as Protecting Members' Rights to Recognition

Sec. 21.3 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not 
    anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered under the 
    five-minute rule nor does he declare in advance the order of 
    recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to 
    offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the 
    Member's rights.

    On Sept. 8, 1966,(13) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of 
recognition for offering amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my 
    understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment 
    to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then 
    I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be 
    recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of 
    submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary 
    situation?

[[Page 10062]]

        The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion 
    of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's 
    rights.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For protection of Members seeking recognition where five-minute 
        debate has been limited, see Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Must Seek Recognition From Chair

Sec. 21.4 A Member desiring to offer an amendment under the five-minute 
    rule must seek recognition from the Chair, and may not be yielded 
    the floor for that purpose by another Member.

    On Dec. 12, 1973,(15) Mr. Robert C. Eckhardt, of Texas, 
sought recognition, under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
Whole, in order to yield to Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, 
for the latter to offer an amendment. Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, ruled that Mr. Eckhardt could not be recognized for that 
purpose.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41171, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 41716, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 1973 
        and 119 Cong. Rec. 13233, 13235, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19, 
        1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member May Not Yield for Amendment

Sec. 21.5 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment (thereby depriving the 
    Chair of his power of recognition), but he may by unanimous consent 
    yield the balance of his time to another Member who may thereafter 
    offer an amendment.

    The proposition described above was demonstrated in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 30, 1975,(17) during consideration of 
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 34442, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Cohen asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Delaware.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Maine cannot yield for the purpose of the gentleman 
    from Delaware offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
    balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Maine?

[[Page 10063]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 
    minutes.

                      amendment offered by mr. du pont

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read the amendment as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 32, immediately 
        after line 26, add the following new section:

            Sec. 16. (a) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .

Power of Recognition Is With the Chair--Manager of Bill May Not Yield 
    to Himself

Sec. 21.6 Under the five-minute rule the Member managing the bill has 
    preference in recognition for debate, but the power of recognition 
    is with the Chair and the Member cannot ``yield'' himself time for 
    debate.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment H.R. 2362, 
the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, reported 
by the Committee on Education 
and Labor, chaired by Adam C. Powell, of New York. The committee agreed 
to a motion to close debate on the pending section and on amendments 
thereto in five minutes. Mr. Powell then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

    Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, stated in response to a 
point of order and to a parliamentary inquiry that although Mr. Powell 
could not ``yield'' himself time for debate under the five-minute rule, 
he could gain five minutes by offering a pro forma amendment or 
speaking in opposition to the pending amendment.

Senior Member of Committee Could Offer Amendment at Any Point of 
    Paragraph of Appropriation Bill

Sec. 21.7 The pending paragraph of an appropriation bill be-ing read 
    under the five-min-ute rule is open to amendment at any point, and 
    a senior member of the committee reporting the bill may be first 
    recognized to offer an amendment notwithstanding the fact that it 
    would insert matter on a line in the paragraph following the line 
    sought to be amended by another Member.

    On July 23, 1970,(20) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, rec

[[Page 10064]]

ognized George H. Mahon, of Texas, a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations which had reported the pending bill, to offer an 
amendment to the pending paragraph. Chairman Holifield then answered a 
series of parliamentary inquiries on the priority of ranking members of 
the reporting committee to recognition to offer amendments, where a 
paragraph is open to amendment at any point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25635, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: May I respectfully 
    remind the Chair that I was recognized, and that the Chair allowed 
    a point of order to intervene only, and I had been recognized. The 
    Chair ruled that since a point of order had been made, the Chair 
    would dispose of the point of order first.
        The Chairman: The Chair respectfully states that the point of 
    order did intervene following the gentleman's recognition. The 
    Chair intends to recognize members of the committee in the order of 
    their seniority. The Chair, therefore, recognized the gentleman 
    from Texas. The Chair will later recognize the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Did the Clerk read through the section concluding 
    with line 3, page 39?
        The Chairman: It is the understanding of the Chair that he did.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jonas: I respectfully ask the Chair to rule that my 
    amendment does precede the amendment that will be offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas. My amendment goes to line 5, page 38, and my 
    information is that the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas comes at a later point in the paragraph.
        The Chairman: A whole paragraph is open to amendment at the 
    same time. Therefore, the line does not determine the order of the 
    amendment.

Recognition in Order of Seniority Is Within Discretion of Chair

Sec. 21.8 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
    the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is 
    not required in every instance to recognize members of the 
    legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their 
    seniority.

    On Oct. 2, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement 
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recog

[[Page 10065]]

nized Mr. Charles H. Wilson, of California, a member of the Committee 
on Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment. 
Mr. Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the 
committee were supposed to be recognized in the order of their 
seniority. The Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's 
discretion'' and proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Alternates Between Majority and Minority, Not Necessarily Members 
    Supporting and Opposing Proposition

Sec. 21.9 In recognizing Members to move to strike the last word under 
    the five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to alternate between 
    majority and minority Members; but the Chair has no knowledge as to 
    whether specific Members oppose or support 
    the pending proposition and therefore cannot strictly alternate 
    between both sides of the question.

    On June 7, 1984,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5504 
(Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1984) 
in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 15423, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary to choose 
    Members opposed and supporting the amendment in some kind of rough 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair is attempting to be fair. What the 
    Chair is doing is alternating between the two sides.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.

Member Recognized in Support of Amendment Prior to Recognition of 
    Another To Offer Substitute

Sec. 21.10 Under the five-minute rule, a Member is entitled to 
    recognition in support of his amendment prior to recognition of 
    another Member to offer, and debate, a substitute therefor.

    On July 17, 1962,(4) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
offered an amendment to the pending bill, being considered under the 
five-minute rule in the Committee of

[[Page 10066]]

the Whole. Chairman B. F. Sisk, of California, recognized Mr. Aspinall 
to debate his amendment for five minutes. Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of 
Pennsylvania, inquired whether it was in order at that time for him to 
offer a substitute amendment. The Chairman responded that it was not in 
order ``until the gentleman from Colorado has had an opportunity to be 
heard on his amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13795, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority of Recognition to Those Supporting Committee Amendment

Sec. 21.11 In recognizing, under the five-minute rule, members of the 
    committee reporting a bill, the Chair recognizes a member in favor 
    of 
    a committee amendment pri-or to recognizing a member thereof who is 
    opposed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(5) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
ruled, sustaining a point of order, that where a bill was being amended 
under the five-minute rule, a member of the reporting committee seeking 
recognition to speak in support of a committee amendment was entitled 
to prior recognition over a committee member seeking recognition to 
speak against the committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Five-minute Debate by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 21.12 Debate in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole proceeds under the five-minute 
    rule, but a Member who has already been recognized for five minutes 
    may be recognized again by unanimous consent only.

    Although a joint resolution called up under the Alaska Natural Gas 
Transportation Act was not subject to substantive amendment under 
section 8(d)(5)(B) of that Act, pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
debate under the five-minute rule were permitted where the resolution, 
on Nov. 2, 1977,(6) was being considered in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 36613, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The unfinished business 
    of the House is the further consideration of the joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 621) approving the Presidential decision on an Alaska 
    natural gas transportation system, and for other purposes, in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the joint 
    resolution.

[[Page 10067]]

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 621

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the House 
        of Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential decision 
        on an Alaska natural gas transportation system submitted to the 
        Congress on September 22, 1977, and find that any environmental 
        impact statements prepared relative to such system and 
        submitted with the President's decision are in compliance with 
        the Natural Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in assuming that the joint 
    resolution before us has been laid before the House, but is not 
    amendable?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Udall: Am I further correct, Mr. Speaker, in assuming that 
    under the procedure by which we are operating, the only way for a 
    Member to gain time is to make a pro forma motion to strike the 
    necessary number of words?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        It is the Chair's understanding that those who have already 
    offered pro forma amendments on the joint resolution may do so 
    again only by unanimous consent.

Sec. 21.13 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may extend 
    his debate time only by unanimous consent, and a motion to that 
    effect is not in order.

    On Apr. 28, 1976,(8) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The time of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3 
    additional minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California? . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I move that I be given 2 additional 
    minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order. The time 
    of the gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett) has expired.

Sec. 21.14 Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of a pending 
    amendment may of-fer a pro forma amendment thereto (for additional 
    de

[[Page 10068]]

    bate time) only by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of the nuclear weapons freeze resolution (H.J. 
Res. 13) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 13, 1983,(10) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 8382, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott C.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (11) Without objection, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, does the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) have an amendment pending?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is correct. The 
    gentleman from Georgia has an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to the text pending.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, is it proper to strike the last word on 
    one's own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman asked for recognition, and without 
    objection, he was recognized for 5 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technically, the proponent may rise in 
opposition to a pro forma amendment offered by another Member in order 
to secure an additional five minutes.

Member Speaking on Amendment Could Speak on Amendment Thereto

Sec. 21.15 While the rules forbid a Member speaking twice on an 
    amendment offered under the five-minute rule, he may speak on the 
    amendment and later in opposition to a pro forma amendment offered 
    during the pendency of the original amendment.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(12) Chairman Robert Ramspeck, of 
Georgia, recognized, during five-minute debate in the Committee of the 
Whole, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, to speak in opposition to a 
pro forma amendment. Mr. Frank E. Hook, of Michigan, objected that a 
Member could not speak twice on the same amendment and that Mr. Dirksen 
had already spoken on the pending amendment. The Chairman ruled that 
Mr. Dirksen could speak on the pro forma amendment although he had 
already spoken to 
the pending substantive amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 2425, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. For the prohibition against one Member speaking twice to the same 
        question, see Rule XIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 762 (1995). For amendment under the five-minute rule, 
        permitting a Member to speak only once on an amendment, see 
        Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10069]]

Sec. 21.16 A Member who has offered an amendment and spoken thereon is 
    not precluded from recognition to speak to a proposed amendment to 
    his amendment.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(14) Chairman John J. Rooney, of New 
York, ruled that a Member who had offered an amendment and spoken 
thereon was not precluded from speaking on an amendment to his 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 32644, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Hugh L.] Carey [of New York]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to foreclose the right 
    of my colleague from California to be heard, but I believe he has 
    already spoken on the floor for 10 minutes in support of his 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Since the time the gentleman from California 
    addressed the Committee with regard to the Hawkins amendment, 
    another amendment has been offered, which is an amendment to the 
    Hawkins amendment, and the gentleman from California has not yet 
    spoken on that.
        Mr. Carey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Offering Pro Forma Amendment After Recognition on Previous Amendment

Sec. 21.17 A Member who has spoken in debate on a second degree 
    amendment may offer a further pro forma amendment to debate the 
    underlying first degree amendment.

    On June 28, 1995,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs, Mrs. Carrie P. Meek, of Florida, was 
debating an amendment in time yielded by Mrs. Corrine Brown, of 
Florida:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 1868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. Brown of Florida: I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
    yielding to me.
        Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that have been said 
    today, but there are still a lot of questions existing. No. 1, 
    there is no one in this Congress, all 435 of them, that know 
    doodley-squat about the Haitian Constitution. They know absolutely 
    nothing about it.
        The Chairman: (17) The time of the gentlewoman from 
    Florida [Ms. Brown] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James V. Hansen (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (On request of Mr. Bonior and by unanimous consent, Ms. Brown 
    of Flor

[[Page 10070]]

    ida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
        Ms. Brown of Florida: I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida. 
    . . .
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get recognized so I can move 
    to strike the last word on the underlying amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] 
    requested 2 additional minutes. The time is hers now. That was 
    granted without objection. She has now yielded to the gentlewoman 
    from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in the well, so the Chair would say to the 
    gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] the time is hers as long as 
    the gentlewoman yields to her.
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, after I have expended the 2 
    minutes that she gives me, may I request 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman may, under that circumstance. . . 
    .
        The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] has again 
    expired.

    In the following exchange, the Chair indicated that one who has 
offered a pro forma amendment on a second-degree amendment may offer 
another pro forma amendment on the first degree amendment:

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Foglietta [of Pennsylvania]: I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I believe I heard the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] say 
    that she moved to strike the requisite number of words on the 
    underlying amendment. She has spoken on her own amendment. Now she 
    has asked for 5 minutes on the underlying amendment. I think she is 
    entitled to that 5 minutes.
        The Chairman: That is correct, and the Chair would recognize 
    the gentlewoman for 5 minutes to strike the last word on the Goss 
    amendment.
        Mrs. Meek of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words. . . .
        When the Goss amendment says ``None of the funds appropriated 
    in this act may be made available to the Government of Haiti when 
    it is made known to the President that such Government is 
    controlled by a regime holding power through means other than the 
    democratic elections scheduled for calendar year 1995 and held in 
    substantial compliance with requirements of the Constitution,'' I 
    repeat again to the gentleman, what does the gentleman mean by 
    ``substantial,'' rhetorical statement, ``compliance?'' What does 
    the gentleman mean by saying that the people in Haiti are not 
    ready? That is the inference the gentleman is making, that they are 
    not ready for a free election.

Sec. 21.18 Where there was pending in the Committee of the Whole an 
    amendment and a substitute therefor, the Chair stated, in response 
    to parliamentary inquiries (1) that the Member offering the 
    substitute could debate it for

[[Page 10071]]

    five minutes and could subsequently be recognized to speak for or 
    against the original amendment; and (2) that a Member recognized to 
    speak on a pending amendment might offer a pro forma amendment and 
    thereby be entitled to a second five minutes of debate.

    On July 28, 1970,(18) an amendment and a substitute 
therefor were pending to a bill being considered under the five-minute 
rule in the Committee of the Whole. Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, responded to parliamentary inquiries on recognition of 
Members for amendments and substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 26027, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Harsha: How many times is a Member permitted to speak on 
    his own amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio inquires as to how many 
    times a Member may speak on his own amendment. The answer to that 
    is he may speak one time to his amendment.
        Mr. Harsha: The author of the amendment is asking for 
    additional time, and some of the rest of us have not had any time.
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my 
    request and yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Collier: Is that rule not also applicable to any other 
    Member of the House, once he has spoken on an amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: Am I not correct 
    in stating that when the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) offered his amendment, he spoke on it; 
    and am I not correct that when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Reuss) offered an amendment the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Schwengel) 
    offered a substitute. Would not the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Schwengel) be allowed to speak for 5 minutes for or against the 
    Reuss amendment, as well as in support of his own substitute?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Cleveland: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Waggonner: Under the rules of the House cannot a Member 
    move to strike the last word and be considered on the same 
    amendment?

[[Page 10072]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Waggonner: And under those conditions a man could speak 
    twice, could he not?

        The Chairman: Possibly. If a Member were to speak one time in 
    opposition to an amendment subsequently he could move to strike the 
    last word and he would be entitled to be recognized.

Recognition Limited to Five Minutes

Sec. 21.19 A decision of the Committee of the Whole to permit a Member 
    to read a letter means that the Member may read the letter within 
    the five minutes allotted to him, and does not necessarily permit 
    him to read the entire letter.

    On June 26, 1952,(19) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 8210, the Defense 
Production Act Amendments of 1952, Mr. Clinton D. McKinnon, of 
California, was recognized on a pro forma amendment and began reading a 
statement by Governor Arnall on a previously adopted amendment to the 
bill. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, objected to the reading, under 
Rule XXX of the rules of the House. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, put the question to the Committee, which voted to permit Mr. 
McKinnon to read the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Mr. McKinnon was reading the letter, Chairman Mills 
interrupted him and stated that his five minutes had expired. Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that the 
vote by the Committee permitted Mr. McKinnon to read the entire letter; 
the Chairman overruled the point of order:

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, the House decided by a teller 
    vote to permit the reading of this letter. I submit that the letter 
    should be read in its entirety; that is the point of order I make.
        The Chairman: That is not the decision made by the Committee. 
    The Committee made the decision that the gentleman could read the 
    letter within the time allotted to the gentleman of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: I did not hear it so stated when the motion was 
    put, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The question put to the Committee had nothing 
    whatsoever to do with the time to be consumed by the gentleman from 
    California. The Chair recognized the gentleman from California for 
    5 minutes; the question arose as to whether or not he could within 
    that 5 minutes time read extraneous papers.
        The point of order is overruled.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XXX House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1995) and annotation 
        thereto for the former prohibition against reading papers, over 
        objection, without the consent of the House.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 10073]]

Recognition on Reintroduced Amendment

Sec. 21.20 Upon the re-offering of an amendment which has, 
    by unanimous consent, been withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole, 
    the proponent is entitled to debate the amendment for a second 
    five-minute period.

    On May 3, 1956,(1) Chairman J. Percy Priest, of 
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a 
Member who again offers an amendment he has withdrawn in the Committee 
of the Whole is entitled to debate the amendment for five minutes 
regardless of previous debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 7439, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mason: Under the rules of the House does a man get two 5-
    minute discussions on the same amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman withdrew his amendment, and it has 
    been offered again. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Recognition for En Bloc Amendments

Sec. 21.21 A Member offering two amendments may, with the consent of 
    the Committee of the Whole, have them considered together, but such 

    consent does not permit 
    the Member to debate the amendments for two five-minute periods.

    On Mar. 5, 1937,(2) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment under the five-minute rule an appropriation 
bill, Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, asked unanimous consent that 
two amendments he was offering, both applicable to the same page, be 
considered together. There was no objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 1919, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dirksen then stated he assumed that he was entitled to proceed 
for 10 minutes, having two amendments. Chairman Schuyler Otis Bland, of 
Virginia, stated that Mr. Dirksen was entitled to only five minutes.

Recognition for Debate Does Not Preclude Timely Point of Order Against 
    Amendment

Sec. 21.22 Mere recognition for debate on an amendment

[[Page 10074]]

    under the five-minute rule does not preclude a point of order 
    against the amendment before the Member recognized has begun his 
    remarks.

    On July 30, 1955,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered an amendment to a Union Calendar bill on the Consent Calendar, 
being considered under the five-minute rule. Mr. Hoffman was recognized 
by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to debate his amendment for five 
minutes. Before Mr. Hoffman had begun his remarks, Mr. H. R. Gross, of 
Iowa, made a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
was not germane. Mr. Hoffman objected that Mr. Gross could not be 
recognized for the point of order, since Mr. Hoffman had already been 
recognized to debate the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker overruled the point of order, stating that Mr. Hoffman 
had not yet begun his remarks.

Closed Rules and Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 21.23 When an amendment, offered by direction of a committee, is 
    being considered under a closed rule, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order and a third Member is not entitled to recognition 
    notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized in 
    opposition, spoke in favor of the amendment.

    On May 18, 1960,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported by 
the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of 
said committee and amendments thereto. Mr. George Meader, of Michigan, 
was recognized by Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, for five 
minutes' debate in opposition to the pending committee amendment. The 
Chairman then answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 10579, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Did the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Meader] get up and ask for time to speak in 
    opposition and would that include any of us who are opposed to the 
    bill, since he is speaking in favor of the bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, no one else can be recognized.
        Mr. Meader: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    wants me to yield to him to make a statement, I will be glad to do 
    so.

[[Page 10075]]

        Mr. Dent: I do not think that is it. I just want to know if the 
    rules of the House allow the time to be usurped by those in favor 
    of the bill when some time is supposed, under the rules of the 
    House, to be allocated to those who are opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair wishes to inform the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the gentleman from Michigan stated that he rose 
    in opposition to the amendment, and the Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Michigan.

Sec. 21.24 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule 
    permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order, one in support of the committee amendment and one in 
    opposition, and the Chair gives preference in recognition to 
    members of the committee reporting the bill.

    On May 18, 1960,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of 
said committee. A member of the Committee on Ways and Means (Mr. Hale 
Boggs, of Louisiana) offered an amendment and was recognized for five 
minutes. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five minutes 
against the amendment were in order, and that committee members had 
prior rights to debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment and I oppose the legislation in 
    general.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the 
    purpose of opposing the legislation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so 
    the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the 
    distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.

Sec. 21.25 Where a bill is being considered under a special order 
    permitting only committee amendments and prohibiting amendments 
    thereto, a second Member rising

[[Page 10076]]

    to support the committee amendment cannot be recognized, since he 
    would necessarily be speaking to a pro forma amendment.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(6) Chairman William Pat Jennings, of 
Virginia, stated that to the pending bill, H.R. 9035, no amendments 
were in order under the special rule adopted by the House except 
amendments offered by the Committee on Public Works. Mr. Frank J. 
Becker, of New York, was recognized for five minutes 
to support the second committee amendment offered. At the conclusion of 
his remarks, Mr. Toby Morris, of Oklahoma, sought recognition in 
support of the amendment. Chairman Jennings declined to recognize Mr. 
Morris for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 17987-89, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state to the gentleman that only 5 minutes is 
    permitted in support of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. 
    Five minutes has been consumed in support of the amendment. 
    Therefore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at this time.

Sec. 21.26 When a committee amendment is being considered under a 
    ``closed'' 
    rule prohibiting amendments thereto, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order, pro forma amendments are not permitted and a third 
    member may be recognized only by unanimous consent.

    An illustration of the proposition described above occurred in the 
Committee of the Whole on Mar. 8, 1977,(7) during 
consideration of the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 (H.R. 
3477). The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 6632, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of 
    the committee amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will state that only two 
    5-minute speeches are in order under the rule absent unanimous 
    consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Tom Bevill (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ketchum: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    be permitted to speak in favor of the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Special Rule Permitting Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 21.27 Where a special rule permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amend

[[Page 10077]]

    ments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, the Chair has 
    discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma amendments to 
    debate the underlying text between consideration of perfecting 
    amendments.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 26, 1982,(9) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be 
    recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not 
    going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Amendments Printed in Record

Sec. 21.28 Where a special rule adopted by the House only requires that 
    all amendments offered to a bill in Committee of the Whole be 
    printed in the Record, any Member may offer any germane amendment 
    printed in the Record, and there is no requirement that only the 
    Member causing the amendment to be printed may offer it, unless the 
    special rule so specifies.

    On Oct. 31, 1979,(11) during consideration of the 
Priority Energy Projects Act of 1979 (H.R. 4985) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 30441, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nick J.] Rahall [II, of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have an amendment that was printed in the Record.
        I also have an amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) that was printed in the Record and through negotiations 
    between the two

[[Page 10078]]

    of us, I am offering the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) at this point. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state the parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Norman D. Dicks (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that under this rule 
    that governs the consideration of this bill that any Member can 
    offer any amendment that was printed in the Record, no matter who 
    the author of the amendment was?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. That is the 
    correct interpretation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The question as to who may offer a printed 
amendment under such a rule must be distinguished from that of who may 
offer a printed amendment under Rule XXIII, clause 6, which 
specifically applies to the Member who caused the amendment to be 
printed.

Limiting Debate

Sec. 21.29 A Member is not entitled to five minutes of debate on a pro 
    forma amendment in Committee of the Whole until the Chair has 
    recognized him for that purpose; and the subcommittee chairman who 
    is managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move to 
    limit debate over a Member seeking recognition to offer a pro forma 
    amendment.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance and related agencies 
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 7797) in the Committee of 
the Whole on June 22, 1977,(13) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my 
    feet seeking recognition.
        The Chairman: (14) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous 
    consent for a limitation on the debate.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease 
    in 10 minutes.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on 


[[Page 10079]]

    this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the 
    Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and 
    he was halfway down the aisle.
        The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time, 
    and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair 
    had to, 
    by custom and rule, I believe, recog-nize the chairman of the 
    subcommittee. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The motion was agreed to.

Member Managing Bill Entitled to Prior Recognition To Move To Close 
    Debate on Amendment

Sec. 21.30 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition, to move 
    to close debate at once on a pending amendment, over other Members 
    who desire to debate the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 19504, the Federal-aid 
Highway Act, being managed by Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. 
Kluczynski moved that all debate on the pending amendment close 
instantly, and the motion was agreed to. Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, then indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries that 
Mr. Kluczynski had the prior right to recognition to move to limit 
debate over other Members seeking recognition, and that further debate 
was not 
in order (although non-debatable amendments could still be offered):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, after all, 
    I was recognized before the Chair recognized the gentleman from New 
    York.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. Are men on their feet 
    going to be permitted to speak for their 3 seconds?
        The Chairman: The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from 
    New York or the gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from 
    Indiana misunderstood the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had 
    to recognize the gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the 
    subcommittee.

[[Page 10080]]

        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jacobs: What about those of us who were on our feet when 
    debate was choked off? Will we be recognized?
        The Chairman: There was no count made of Members standing for 
    time, and the motion of the gentleman from Illinois was to close 
    debate, and that motion was agreed to.

Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 21.31 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the 
    Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted 
    and the Chair declines to recognize for a pro forma amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1957,(16) after Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back 
the pending bill with the recommendation the enacting clause be 
stricken, Mr. Leon H. Gavin, of Pennsylvania, sought to gain 
recognition on a motion to strike out the last word. Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, declined to recognize him for that purpose. After 
two five-minute speeches had been had on the motion, Mr. Gavin again 
sought recognition to debate the motion, and the Chairman ruled that no 
further debate could be had.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 13385, 13386, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.32 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause offered in the 
    Committee of the Whole, only two five-minute speeches are permitted 
    and the Chair generally declines to recognize a request for an 
    extension of that time.

    On July 18, 1951,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered 
a motion that the Committee of 
the Whole rise and report back 
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken. He then asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks and to proceed for five additional minutes. Mr. Brent Spence, 
of Kentucky, objected to the request. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, ruled as follows on the request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 8371, 8372, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman may revise and extend his remarks, without 
    objection, but he may not proceed for an additional 5 minutes on a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 98 Cong. Rec. 1829, 1830, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 
        1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.33 On a motion to strike out the enacting clause in the 
    Committee of the Whole,

[[Page 10081]]

    only two five-minute speeches are permitted, notwithstanding the 
    fact that the second Member, recognized in opposition to the 
    motion, spoke in favor thereof.

    On Mar. 18, 1960,(19) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the 
pending bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken. Mr. Jones was recognized for five minutes' 
debate in support of the motion. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
rose in opposition to the motion and consumed his five minutes, 
actually speaking in favor of the motion. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, then made a point of order, which was overruled by Chairman 
Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 6026, 6027, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I seek recognition 
    in opposition to the amendment on the ground that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Colmer) did not talk against the motion.
        The Chairman: The 5 minutes for the preferential motion and the 
    5 minutes against the motion have expired.

Sec. 21.34 A Member offering a motion in the Committee of the Whole to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill may yield to another while 
    he has the floor but he may not yield his five minutes of debate to 
    another Member to discuss the motion.

    On Sept. 27, 1945,(20) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
offered a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report back 
the pending bill with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken. Mr. May then stated he yielded his five minutes' time on the 
motion to another Member. Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, objected 
that Mr. May could not so yield all his time and Mr. May then remained 
on his feet and yielded part of his time to the other Member to debate 
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.35 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the 
    preferential motion that the Committee rise and report with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

    On Dec. 18, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Airport 
and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 9771) in the

[[Page 10082]]

Committee of the Whole, the proceedings described above were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the 
        bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson).
        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of 
    my time.
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since Mr. Anderson utilized only a small 
fraction of his time to speak against the preferential motion, Mr. 
Garry Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition to speak against the 
motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since only two Members may 
be recognized to speak on the motion.

Debate on Appeal of Ruling

Sec. 21.36 An appeal in the Committee of the Whole is debatable under 
    the five-minute rule, whether the Committee is conducting general 
    debate or proceeding under the five-minute rule, and such debate is 
    confined to the appeal.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting general debate on H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment 
Practice Act. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, who had the floor, 
yielded one minute of debate to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia. Mr. 
Smith delivered some remarks on the lateness of the session and then 
moved that the Committee rise. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled that Mr. Smith could not so move, having been 
recognized for debate only. Mr. Smith appealed the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, the Chairman stated that debate on the appeal was under 
the five-minute rule. Mr. Rankin debated the appeal, and Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, made a point of order against Mr. Rankin's 
remarks on

[[Page 10083]]

the ground he was not confining himself to the subject of the appeal. 
The Chairman sustained the point of order.